John Hospers endorses Bush (long)

[Schmitz in 1972]

John Hospers, the Libertarian Party's first candidate, has come out in support of Bush


An Open Letter To Libertarians
by John Hospers

Dear Libertarian:

As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans.

There is a belief that's common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.

The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic Party.

Today's Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a defeat for them.

[Schmitz in 1972]

The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property. It is opposed to free speech: witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry's threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it "defending human rights." This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents.

There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country, and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by the liberal-left mainstream media. This is an ominous sign of worse things to come.

Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the withdrawal of the U. S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as saying that it is honorable for those in the U. S. military to die under the flag of the U. N. but not that of the U. S. Presumably he and a small cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U. N. or some other world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security, constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free markets.

[Schmitz in 1972]

His wife's foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration. [Note: Check out the articles about the Heinz foundations and the Tides Center posted at the Web site of the Capital Research Center. --Bidinotto]

Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming election via a legal coup, e. g. to claim victory on election night no matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our ability to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to America.

George Bush has been criticized for many things -- and in many cases with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property. Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence, to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with "the big one": 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U. S. and indeed to the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s involving weapons of mass destruction, including "suitcase" nuclear devices.

Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens the world just as Nazi fascism and Soviet communism did in previous decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.

The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam's regime is no longer a major player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah. Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude safer.

National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a party I attended in l962, in response to complaints that "taxes are too high" (then 20%), "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." It is not the amount but the purpose served that decides what is "too much." And the purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face of vastly increased threats to its existence.

Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:

(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.

(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has already repudiated any such change in social security laws.

The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the educational system, which today serves the liberal-left education bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. It will require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the mainstream media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been extremely successful in this regard over the past few years). And it will require understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa Kerry-like Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances.

Most of all, it will require the American people -- including many libertarians -- to realize the overwhelming dangerousness of the American Left -- a Fifth Column comprised of the elements mentioned above, dedicated to achieving their goal of a totally internationally dominated America, and a true world-wide Fascism.

Thus far their long-term plans have been quite successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the way it might well succeed in preserving Western civilization against the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the weapons capability, to bring it to an end.

When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a "minor party" candidate who cannot possibly win, just to "get the word out" and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical "Battle Ground" states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote Libertarian, we may win a tiny rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.

John Hospers

[Schmitz in 1972]

The Libertarian Party would never have gotten off the ground if not for Hosper's electoral vote in 1972, and now he's saying he wants Bush over Badnarik. Libertarians of the board: I beg you to consider Mr. Hospers words and think about voting for Bush instead of Badnarik

[phillies]

The Original is on Free Republic
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1255362/posts

Eric Dondero,  a Republican who claims Libertarian leanings,  claims that the authenticity is attested to by several people:

***Libertarian Republican Political Report***

Special Edition!!!
October 25, 2004
Editor´s Note - This is no Internet Hoax.  This has been confirmed by no less than 3 LRPR Honored Subscribers - 2004 Libertarian Party Congressional Candidate Bruce Cohen and fmr. LP of Orange County Chairman Mark Murphy of California, and well-known Libertarian-Conservative Chuck Muth of Maryland. 

Cohen has responded to my response to Libertarians, under conditions where he would certainly have mentioned if the article were a hoax, so its authenticity may be assumed.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This "endorsement" is actually supposed to make people want to vote for Bush?  I knew Libertarians were wackos, but I didn't realize they could be this bad.

[phillies]

I was a tad surprised that the illustrious Vorlon posted the entire letter, rather than the announcement and a link, but his wisdom in operating this board is a pearl beyond valuation.

So, noting that I am National Mobilization Facilitator for the Badnarik Campaign, and noting that campaign co-chair Barb Goushaw thanked me for writing the following which has been widely circulated to Libertarians, I essay:

In response to John Hospers

With respect to the George Bush Neoconservative Party, and the
when-it-counted-look-where-their-votes-in-Congress-went John Kerry Also-Neoconservative Party

In which we recall elements of political methods of seventy years ago, and show how they appear in modern flag crepe.

Imperial Ambitions:  The Japanese talked of a Greater Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere, in which trade between Asian Nations would be backed by Japanese military bases from Burma to Hawaii.  Their reach exceeded their grasp.  Neoconservatives talk of a permanent American presence, backed by a dozen or fourteen American bases, across Iraq with Iraq obliged to sell their oil to us, in our currency.  Meanwhile, an initially neutral Iraqi population has become actively hostile.  In Vietnam, GIs could stroll the streets of Saigon taking pictures and buying souvenirs, or so they said at the time.  In modern Iraq, GIs who enter Baghdad do so in armed convoys highly likely to be attacked by the residents.

The Big Lie Technique, in which outrageous and absurd claims are made against whichever opponent is next to be brought to hand, can be seen the claims that the Italian State was the Roman Empire reborn and that German people were entitled to Lebensraum, open space to be stolen from their neighbors.  Herr Ribbentrop made whichever political agreement was momentarily most convenient to his German masters.  Modern Neoconservatives eschew even this level of consistency, so that President Hussein on different dates had a stockpile of poison gas, a nuclear weapons program, cruise missiles capable of bombing the United States, clear links to El Qaida, a role in the 9/11 attacks, or perhaps thoughts of recovering his modern weapons programs if the UN restrictions against his country were ever removed.  The Neoconservative Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, was happy to repeat all these fables to the United Nations, all in justification of a Neoconservative war of Aggression.  An honest and ethical Secretary of State, ashamed of how he had misled the United Nations, would have resigned.  Mr. Powell did not.

Racism:  Many Americans are baffled by how the superficially civilized Germany of the 1920s could two decades transform itself into an antisemitic cesspool.  But you've seen it on modern television, with a few names changed. Contemplate the televised exchange in which one commentator referred to Kerry's stances as nuanced, and his neocon challenger responded 'Nuanced?  That's so...French.'  For Neocons, vilification of one of the oldest lands in Europe, the country whose soldiers and subsidies substantially saved the American Revolution, replaces rantings about Jewish Physics and Jewish Bankers.

Racialism: The Germans of the 1930s denounced their political opponents as enemies of the German Volk.  For modern Neoconservatives, the racialist slur against their opponents is that critics of their policies are antisemites.  The slur is repeated even when the religious faith of the Neoconservatives being defended is not not generally known.

Religious hatred:  For classical Europeans of this sort, the target of hatred was the Jews.  For modern neoconservatives, the target of hatred is "Islamofascism".   For European fascists, Jews had the Auschwitz death camp.  For Neoconservative neofascists, Islamites are shipped off to the Abu Ghraib rape camp or the Guantanamo Gulag.

Big wars against small targets:  Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, unleashing tanks, bombers, and poison gas against the soldiers of the Emperor Haile Selassie.  The Ethiopians fought bravely, but were overwhelmed by modern technology, letting Mussolini parade his victories before the Italian people.  Seventy years later, Neoconservatives launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq, whose army fought for a short while, letting Neoconservatives parade 'Mission Accomplished' before the American people.

Readers of 'It Can't Happen Here' may recall the war with Mexico, with bigger and bigger victories being won in about the same location.  We now see reality imitating art, with the Army liberating Samara for what appears to be the third time.

Politicalization of the Military.  Five decades ago, when it was proposed that Eisenhower would emulate Grant and run for President, it was at first unclear as to which party would have him as their candidate.  Under modern conditions the Armed Forces are heavily associated with the stances of a single political party, the Republicans, with anecdotal and indirect polling evidence indicating that the long-term soldiers and sailors lean Republican by perhaps five-to-one.

The Emerging Police State:  When we see films of trains in 1930s Europe, and watch the tall handsome man working down the seats asking 'Your Papers, please?' we know he is not the hero of the piece.  Travel papers were a control method.  Their modern counterparts understand the method. Neoconservatives are hard at work instituting a state travel paper system--to the limited extent that we do not already have one.

Arrest without trial:  The Germans had a wonderful phrase 'smoke and fog' for the disappearance of political undesirables.  The Neoconservatives have brought arrest without trial to the United States, with the incarceration of Mr. Padilla in a military prison camp.

Conscription and National Service as tools for lining up the young people and brainwashing them into obeying their masters.  Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry may say they are not planning on reviving the draft, but they put their money on maintaining and enhancing the Selective Service System.

Neoconservatism: It's Neofascism in Red, White, and Blue Bunting.

A vote for Bush/Kerry is a vote for Neoconservatism.
A vote for Kerry/Bush is a vote against America.

Vote Libertarian! Badnarik for President.

[CARLHAYDEN]

John Hospers, the Libertarian Party's first candidate, has come out in support of Bush


An Open Letter To Libertarians
by John Hospers

Dear Libertarian:

As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in l972, and was the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party's Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in 1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting Americans.

There is a belief that's common among many libertarians that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties -- between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse: that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the cause of liberty.

The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the contemporary Democratic Party.

Today's Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it, including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is construed as a defeat for them.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Hospers.

Thanks for posting his statement.

[A18]

Good man

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Libertarians for Patriot Act II?
Hahahaha

[Giant Saguaro]

Wow, well said. From a Libertarian? Good for him.

[No more McShame]

The LP needs more minds like his.  Today's LP is too isolationalist.

[??????????]

The truth about the Democrats is clear enough in that letter. We can never trust them to have power.

[Light Touch]

Hospers needs to check his premises.  I agree that Kerry is a cold bag of wet sh**t, and one of the worst candidates position-wise I ever remember, but Bush is not as dramatically different as Hospers would have everyone believe.

Kerry + Republican Congress = gridlock = good for liberty
Bush + Republican Congress = increased spending = bad for liberty.

If you think the Dems win Congress and the White House, vote Bush.  And come see me about a great pyramid scheme I've come up with -- you can't lose.

[A18]

http://libertariansforbush.com

Gridlock = no tax reform = no social security reform = reduced spending = still trillions of dollars in debt = no one fighting the war on terror

[Light Touch]

http://libertariansforbush.com

Gridlock = no tax reform = no social security reform = reduced spending = still trillions of dollars in debt = no one fighting the war on terror

Yep, they're both bad for the country.

That's why I'm voting for real change, not someone who might have a miniscule positive effect on a particular issue (but not on others).

[phillies]

I think this is a hoax.

It was posted to Free Republic's "Forum" by someone with the handle "Y2Krap". Repeated follow-up requests to Y2Krap for source information have not been answered in the thread until just recently.  The response was a website of dubious reputation and not a place where Hospers would be expected to send his letter.

I find it doubtful that John Hospers, a professor at USC and Senior Editor at Liberty Magazine, would have his letter published on a Forum or other dubious website when he has a number of alternatives specifically Liberty Magazine.

I have been in direct contact with Bruce COhen, one of the people named by Eric Dondero (the original source) as able to vouch for the authenticity of the letter.  The discussion was such that the authenticity of the letter would have been questioned if it were questionable; it was not questioned.

[phillies]

The Hospers letter is not a hoax.  I may dislike World Net Daily, but see

 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41116

for the details.